One of the greatest theoretical minds in astrophysics. He was hard at it tyring to combine tenants of Quantum mechanics with contrasting theories of Relativity into a grand unified theory to explain the universe's workings in a micro and macro sense. Lots of cool ideas. String theory, parrallel universes forming from stems in black holes then popping free..blarh, blarh.. stuff..etc..
Wasn't a kite injury. More electrical activity in his brain than most large cities...Sharp cookie.

Although I have no idea what a spacker is I'll bite and reply to this (I have no idea why);
...in the current paradigm, the idea of time travel, as far as I understand it basically developed as a way of accommodating a theory, not because it is neccessarily true. It partly stems from the fact that time in it self is a man made property, and that we cannot explain it.

I am little bit interested in time travel right now (getting older)
There are two problems as I see it;
First how to do it.
For instance, by going through wormholes, and unless the worm hole bends back at itself, you will not meet your younger self, thus it will "only" be a time travel to the future and consist of bending the current time so that you age slower than the people you left / meet. (wormholes bend back at themselves but that is not time travel in it self (right?)).

I guess travelling into the future would be possible if you were to travel into outer space and return, moving close to light speed, you could travel thousands of years into the Earth's future, however that is not as interesting to me as travelling back in time.

The ever developing paradox of changing the past. A new theory has been developed that is supposed to be consistent with the theory of quantum mechanincs; http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0506/0506027.pdf that I guess can explain it by saying that time travel to the past is deterministic, and that in the past free will does not exisit...instead of changing the past, you will change as to accommodate for what has happened thus not leading to a alternate present. The authors claim that this is not inconsistent with free will because quantum mechanically you will only see the those alternatives consistent with the world you left behind as possible...In my opinion this is very close to not having free will..you can choose between this option or..nope that ths only option.

It seems to me that coming up with a theory like that is only accommodating the lack of an all inclusive theory that actually captures physics..I mean we have two different incompatible theories for how the universe functions...that just not right...

And for the love of GOD can you at least spell his name right? If you're going to insult somebody to whom you have the comparitive mental capacity of a retarded brick, please at least get his name right: